Submitted by rudimentarythoughts t3_xshkbf in MachineLearning

I’m an ML software engineer and my work doesn’t involve a lot of research or publishing papers but I do have an interest in doing some research on my own and focusing some time on exploring new approaches, especially in the NLP space. I was wondering if attending Neurips would be a good stepping stone to see what the research world is like? Are the workshops beneficial? Or is it not worth it if I don’t have an accepted paper?

3

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bahuchha t1_iqld9nv wrote

You go to neurips only if

  1. You have a paper to present
  2. You want to network with like minded people
  3. Your company is sponsoring your visit and you have free time

Everything else can be done without visiting in person

8

VirtualHat t1_iql9ewk wrote

I haven't heard this talked about much, but I think reading groups are by far the best way to dip your toes into a research field. It's a chance to read some papers you might not normally read, as well as get to know some interesting people in the field.

In my experience, reading groups are typically very open to outsiders, especially if you have an interest in the field.

4

rudimentarythoughts OP t1_iqtphdb wrote

Thank you for the advice! Do you know some reading groups for NLP?

1

VirtualHat t1_iquhpin wrote

I'm not sure about other countries, but in Australia, I just searched for ML on Meetup.com, and found a group that frequently talks about NLP. You can always email the relevant lecturer at your local university, I'm sure they'd be glad to recommend a group to you.

2

VirtualHat t1_iql9639 wrote

I'm heading to NeurIPS this year (with a paper), and I see it as an opportunity to network as well as promote my research. This is my first time, and so I'm also asking the same question if it's worth it or not.

If you end up going, I'd be really interested to get your thoughts in two-months time about your experience and if it ended up being worthwhile or not.

2

PassionatePossum t1_iqldif6 wrote

I cannot speak for NeurIPS in particular. But most academic conferences are just there to know what is out there, not to gain a deep understanding of the topic. Every session (keynotes aside) is very rushed. Each speaker maybe gets 10 minutes to present his paper. That is usually enough to get a general idea what this paper is about but not nearly enough to really understand it. I usually just sit in these sessions and make a note that I this might be an interesting paper to read later.

And don‘t expect workshops to be a step by step introduction into the subject. You still need to have good general understanding of the subject to benefit from one. I‘ve also been at conferences where „workshop“ wasn‘t intended to be a workshop for participants but for the authors (which usually were new researchers). Those were papers with interesting approaches but not so good results. And the audience was encouraged to contribute ideas that the author could try.

Just to be sure: I‘m not saying that it wouldn‘t be worth attending such a conference. I‘m just saying that you should have the right expectations.

2

hasanrobot t1_iqoks2y wrote

Attending conferences is important if you want to create and maintain a network of researchers you converse with. However, you have to put in the work ahead of time and after to make it count. Trying to create connections spontaneously is possible but unreliable.

2

zyl1024 t1_iqkoopm wrote

Can you already understand some papers there by reading them? If so, you could get some interesting discussions with the authors. Not having a paper isn't that important. Most people don't care if you have a paper there, as long as you have good thoughts during discussion. If not, I am afraid that it's not too beneficial. For workshops, the invited talks are typically much better than contributed papers, which are mostly preliminary ideas or rejected conference papers.

1